When you keep saying to yourself you're exceptional, you end
up believing it whether it is true or it is a lie. This will eventually lead
you to believe that you occupy the center of the universe, and that nothing
happens which is not connected to you one way or another. You are, in your own
eyes, the diva from whom everyone that's on the stage draws energy, and around
whom everyone plays second fiddle. Alas, the chances are that it's all a
fantasy; a kind of self-induced delusion.
You can see how that works in real life when you review the
New York Times editorial which came under the title: “Calming Troubled Waters,”
published on November 10, 2014. It's about the dispute between China and Japan
regarding the waters of the East China Sea and
the islands therein. The editors begin their piece normally, which involves the
laying out of the background: “For more than two years, rising tensions between
China and Japan have unsettled Asia
… On Friday, their leaders showed statesmanship with an agreement that seems
likely to ease the dispute.”
But when the editors start to discuss the history of the
dispute, something different happens. That's where they find an opening to
mention America 's
role in the unfolding drama. To be sure, this is not a mention in passing but
one that makes America
appear like a central figure on the Asian stage. It is a presence that has
served as a catalyst – one that contributed to the agreement reached between he
two economic giants. Here is how the editors put it: “He may have realized that
his bullying has pushed other countries closer to the United States .”
He being the President of China.
To an astute reader, however, that passage sounds phony. And
this is because the three paragraphs that lead to it suggest as much. In
telling the history of the dispute, the editors have shown unwittingly that Japan caused the provocation, and that China was the
injured party. Here is how they put it: “That was when Japan
nationalized the islands.” And here is how China
reacted: “China
has asserted its own claims, sending ships and fishing boats into adjacent
waters.” What is clear, therefore, is that Japan
triggered the incident, and that China responded like any sovereign
country would.
And there is more in those three paragraphs which says that
the mention of the United
States in the editorial is an oddity that
should not be there. Just look at the civilized manner with which the two
countries handled the dispute: “In a statement released by both sides, the two
finessed their claims by saying that neither side had won or lost. They opened
the door to a resumption of discussions that had been frozen … In a deft use of
diplomatic language, the statement acknowledged that 'different positions
exist,' giving both countries space to move forward.” With this much class
shown by both sides in the dispute, the two Asian giants did not need America 's
cowboy diplomacy.
So then, how is it that the editors of the New York Times
have managed to come from outside the sphere of civilized conduct, and insert
the United States
into the discussion? They did it in the manner of American crass journalism …
they falsely accused China 's
President of bullying Japan .
And this is how they gave themselves the opportunity to both speculate and
editorialize in the following manner: “He may have pushed other countries
closer to the United States .”
But sensing that this alone may not sound too convincing, they added what
follows as an afterthought: “Japanese investment in China has dropped by nearly half.”
That's more like it; a dose of realism has added credibility to the editorial.
Having found a way to place America at the center of the stage
– something they did by tarnishing the character of the Chinese President –
they now backtrack in an attempt to restore balance to the editorial lest they
be accused of telling lies. The good thing in their eyes is that they can do so
by inserting America
into the discussion one more time. Here is the passage: “Mr. Abe's [PM of Japan ] willingness to stoke tensions with China has also
worried the region and the Obama administration, which pressed him to ease
off.” At least now, they make it sound like both sides in the dispute could be
at fault.
Still, they have not been even-handed in that they used a
harsher language to describe the character of the Chinese leader. But then
again, Japan is supposed to
be a ”friend” of the United States
while China
is a rival.
Having instituted a rough balance between the two, however,
they continue to favor Japan ,
as shown in this passage: “The two sides pledged to keep the situation from
getting out of hand. The concern is that … China will ramp up the number of
paramilitary ships it sends to patrol the islands.” Here we go again. It was China 's fault the first time; it will be China 's fault
if the dispute persists. It must be said that prejudice has gripped the hearts
of these editors like religious dogma.
Finally, they convince themselves they can out-blossom the
civilized Asians by giving them advice as if they needed it from crass American
journalists. Here is what they offer: “Mr. Xi and Mr. Abe should set in motion
a process [to] resolve their differences, not confront each other in the East China Sea .”